visit_page

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided. The description discloses it fetches and returns text content, but does not mention potential limitations such as JavaScript rendering, rate limits, or error handling. For a simple tool, this is adequate but could be more transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise: one sentence for purpose, one for usage, sample prompts, and parameter explanation. No wasted words, well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given simple one-parameter tool and existence of output schema (though not shown), the description is sufficient. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and parameter semantics. Could mention that it only extracts text, but context is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by explaining the parameter: 'The full URL to visit and extract text from.' It specifies 'full URL' indicating protocol needed, which is helpful beyond the schema type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool fetches a web page and returns text content. It distinguishes from sibling tools like google_search (search) and read_document (document reading), and mentions using it after google_search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this after google_search to read the actual content of a result.' Sample prompts provide additional context. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but guidance is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.